Cyberturfing Analysis

LAW 204 – Assignment 4

In AstroTurfing, 'CyberTurfing' and other online persuasion campaigns , Mark Leiser argues that further regulation is required to combat CyberTurfing because it poses a threat to consumer trust and democratic discourse. This is due to consumers reliance on heuristics, the manipulation of digitally mediated platforms, and the inadequacy of current regulation.

Due to its threat to consumers and democratic discourse, further regulation is required to combat CyberTurfing. CyberTurfing involves the use of paid agents to spread false information to consumers and create a false impression of support for a product, service, or ideology. Consumers rely on heuristics when making complex decisions, including decisions on what

CyberTurfing is the online equivalent of Astroturfing, differentiated by the online medium in which the deception is being spread. CyberTurfing is often harder to detect due to the lack of transparency that exists online. The global reach of the internet also increases the scope of people that may be deceived. For example, CyberTurf messages are being spread on Twitter through the use of Honey Pots; fake accounts that are preprogrammed to tweet, reply and direct message users, whom usually have great influence on the platform. Usually, these accounts are easy to detect but more advanced Honey Pots have shown emotional intelligence capabilities like that of humans. The author also references the “Daily Me” which is a prophesized tool that will allow users to filter what they see online. CyberTurfing seeks to take advantage of this narrow online world by spreading messages to deceiver

Current measures have mainly been established using mainly ex-post regulation rather than ex-ante regulation. Deceptive commercial speech in the U.S is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. The U.S constitution’s first amendment includes the freedom of speech. This has made it difficult for lawmakers develop commercial speech regulation because they are in fear of breaching this constitutional right. However, if businesses believe they have been a victim of deceptive advertising they can bring an action under s.43(a) of the Lanham Act. The Federal Trade Commission has developed a framework for regulating deceptive commercial speech, in which one must prove the advertisement was a “material representation, omission or practice” that was “likely to mislead a customer”, and that “no one acting reasonably under the circumstances” would believe the claims. Deceptive commercial speech in the UK is regulated by the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) as well as national advertising codes. The UCPD seeks the protect the economic interests of consumers from deceptive commercial practices but does not seek to protect businesses. The UK also regulates political campaign spending for the 365 days up to the vote and four months after the vote but does this only for relevant elections and does not regulate outside these campaign periods. In both jurisdictions, the